Jul 23

Welcome back!

What authority in your life is primary? Is it God? The Bible? The government? Some person? An organization? A business? Whom or what do you fear the most? Or to ask the question in a different way, what authority will you obey above all others?

Some Christian churches claim that the central theme of the Bible is salvation from human sin. But if you read the Bible carefully, you will see that salvation from sin is nowhere nearly as important a theme as the question of power. At its core, the Bible is a book about the use and abuse of power and conflicting demands for obedience to authority.

The Bible, taken as a whole, is a study in the relationship between God, government power, and personal obedience. It claims that God is the ultimate authority, but has mixed messages about whether or not human rulers are agents of God’s authority on Earth.

Most of the Bible stories are about these questions of power and the abuse of power and about authority and conflicting claims to authority.  I didn’t learn those Bible stories in Sunday School. Instead, I learned sweet stories about being nice and giving to the poor. Mostly, I learned that I was supposed to be obedient to established authority.

In fact, the stories about Jesus are fundamentally the stories of a man who was acting against the authority of the government with its government-controlled religion. Again and again, Jesus confronted the abuse of power by the religious/political power system. Yet my religious education was almost exclusively about teaching me to obey established authority without question.

For most of us, this is the essence of both religious and public school education. Our lives are one long experience of being told that we must obey some external authority. When we are small, ultimate authority is vested in our parents and teachers and the other big people in our lives. For children, God is just another big person to obey. The idea of God easily becomes a Santa Claus type figure in the sky who is watching to see if we are naughty or nice. 

The older we get, the more complicated the questions about obedience to authority become. We have traffic rules, IRS rules, homeowner association rules to obey. Every where there are rules to follow. Don’t walk on the grass. Don’t litter. Don’t park here. And sometimes the obedience to rules makes the difference between life and death.

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War and the tremendous personal anguish involved in questions of obedience to authority. In the era of the wartime draft, the government claimed obedience as its right. If it drafted one of its citizens, that young man had no choice. He had to obey or face the consequences.

Military training is fundamentally an exercise in teaching people to obey authority, even at the cost of their lives. This is why there are ranks with visible insignia, and people are taught to salute signs of authority.

While my husband was an officer in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, we lived for three years on an Air Force base in Arkansas. We had a sticker on the front bumper of the car signifying that this was an officer’s car.

I used to drive on and off the base to go to work each day, and always felt a bit awkward each time the guard saluted as I drove back onto the base. Even then I thought it was odd. What was he saluting? I didn’t deserve the salute, because I was not an officer in the Air Force. He was told to salute a sticker. If intelligent people can be trained to salute a sticker on the bumper of a car, think of how powerful the forces of persuasion are to persuade people to kill as an act of obedience to authority.

This blog is named “Impolite Topics.” Most churches have their own list of impolite topics. For many churches, the most impolite of all the impolite topics is the question of power in relationship to the government. These churches tend to be mainstream, established, and practicing traditional religion. In contrast, churches made up of people who feel oppressed or excluded from social power are not so polite on the topics of religion and politics.  The topics of power and confrontation of government abuse of power are no longer impolite topics, but become central to the teaching of the church.
 
In my book, Going Broke With Jesus, I wrote about what Jesus said about money as part of his condemnation of the abuse of power by the government and temple system. One of these stories concerns the temple tax. Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:19-26 tell two versions of a story in which members of the political and religious establishment attempt to trap Jesus with a question about paying the temple tax with a coin with Caesar’s image on it.  Jesus answered with the words: ”Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.

If anyone has any idea that money is simply a matter of personal morality, this episode brings to the surface the relationship between religion and government. This is a story about taxation. But it is about more than taxation. It involves questions of authority on Earth. Do believers obey God or the government? Interpretation of this particular episode goes far beyond money. The Bible verse: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s,” is responsible for shameful moments in church history, when Christian churches kept silent while governments perpetrated atrocities.
Going Broke With Jesus, Chapter 9, By Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Religion, politics, and the Bible are completely interwoven with questions about authority and obedience. And so this is the fundamental question: What authority will you obey above all others?

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Jul 21

Religion, politics, and the Bible come together in the question: Should the Bible be taught in public schools? 

Broadly speaking there are three answers to this question.

  • The first is a definite “NO.” The state has no business teaching religion and religion has no place in schools paid for with public money.

  • The second is a definite “YES.” Public schools have no right to “ban the Bible” from the majority of the Christian population. Teaching religion in public schools is essential to educate a morally upright population.

  • The third is a definite “YES with qualifications.” This position argues that the Bible is an essential part of our own history and culture. Study of the bible is necessary to understand literature and art, as well as the religious roots of our own history and government. However, the Bible must be taught “neutrally,” without bias for or against any religion.

As a prime example of the third position, the Texas State Board Of Education has approved an elective course about the Bible in the state’s public high schools.

What is striking to me is how hard the Board is trying to walk the tightrope of the third position, by acknowledging that the Bible has been an essential part of Western history, at the same time it attempts to lay out guidelines for teaching such a course that do not violate state and federal law. See “General Meeting.”

Here is: “Requirements for Elective Courses in the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament and Their Impact on the History and Literature of Western Civilization.”

The notes about the meeting also include  Summary of Comments about the proposed courses.

The proposed Bible courses raise significant questions about the connections between religion, politics, and the Bible. 

This course, and the comments about it, demonstrate the challenges of teaching a religious book without being religious about it in a society that is not supposed to promote one religion over another.

This is the dilmma that we face.  The Texas State Board of Education is attempting to meet that challenge head-on.

In my next post, I will make some comments about these course requirements and the comments.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson


written by Kalinda \\ tags: , , , ,

Jul 05

In the United States, politicians had better be overtly religious. They travel a razor’s edge of demonstrating their faith, while being careful not to offend those whose religious beliefs are different.

Consider the religious hurdles faced by various candidates for President during the primaries and caucuses. A candidate must be religious. Yet, Mitt Romney is religious, but he is a Mormon. This is a problem. Mike Huckabee is religious, but he is a former Southern Baptist minister. This is a problem. John McCain is religious, but many evangelicals don’t trust him to be sufficiently evangelical. This is a big problem for McCain.

Barack Obama has his own religious razor’s edge to walk. Obama–for those evangelicals who do not believe that he is really a Muslim–is also considered not evangelical enough.

Consider the now infamous statements by Dr. James Dobson about Barack Obama. Because Obama’s religious beliefs do not coincide with Dobson’s, Dobson has judged Obama as “distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible.”

(Dobson’s intemperate remarks produced a flood of responses, including this “James Dobson Doesn’t Speak For Me” website by Kirbyjon H. Caldwell, pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, a 14,000-member megachurch in Houston, Texas. )

Compare the religious challenges facing American politicians with the challenges facing Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of Great Britain. In secular Great Britain, a religious politician is as suspect as a non-religious politician would be in the United States.

Blair has enough old-fashioned British reserve to have his doubts about the way religion is used in the American public square. Whenever Blair was on a foreign trip, says a close aide, his staff had to find him a church in which to worship each Sunday-and then try to make sure that the press didn’t learn of it. By contrast, says this aide, “Bush and Clinton are always photographed coming out of church holding a Bible.” Time Magazine, “Tony Blair’s Leap Of Faith.”

Since American politicians have to prove they are sufficiently Christian, their comments about religion tend to dance around issues of dogma. In the process, they do not often address deeper religious and political issues.  In contrast, Tony Blair offers a profoundly different insight into why religion matters, especially in a time of globalization. Consider these words from a fascinating article in Time Magazine, by Michael Elliott, “Tony Blair’s Leap of Faith.”

In two long conversations with Blair recently, I explored his conviction that religion matters–that it shapes what people believe and how they behave, that it is vital to understanding our world, that it can be used to improve the lot of humankind. But if not engaged seriously, Blair thinks, faith can be used to induce ignorance, fear and a withdrawal of communities into mutually antagonistic spheres at just the time that globalization is breaking down barriers between peoples and nations. “Faith is part of our future,” Blair says, “and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalization work.” For Blair, the goal is to rescue faith from the twin challenges of irrelevance–the idea that religion is no more than an interesting aspect of history-and extremism. Blair and those working with him think religion is key to the global agenda.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: , , , , , , ,